ohokyeah:Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is.

Water vapor IS a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, because its atmospheric concentration is highly variable and critically dependent on temperature, it serves more as an amplifier of other warming factors than as a primary cause in itself. Link

And as for the water vapor from nuclear plants, unless it's drawn from fossil-water aquifers, it has no effect on the overall atmospheric water vapor content.

While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?

Oldiron_79:ZAZ: I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.

As a 2 seater subcompact it has worse gas mileage(32 mpg) than many 4 seater compacts, and not that much better than many mid sized and full sized cars, unless you are buying it for parallel parking in a large city its more like the dumb car than the smart car.

As the owner of a Smart Car, I bought it for more than just good gas mileage and easy parking, although those are two things I love about my car.

I also bought it for the huge amounts of head and leg room (I'm 6'8". I need the interior room that the Smart has.), the fact that I could actually afford it (it was just over 15k walkout price), It never has to be painted, doesn't show scratches, needs the oil changed every 10k miles, has a glass/see through plastic top, leather seats, and a hundred other little things that make it the perfect car for me.

Every time i hear one of you idiots that's never owned one call it something retarded like "the Dumb Car" it pisses me right the fark off.

I find it odd that a study would come to these conclusions given recent research into natural variabilities effects on the global average temperatures from 1979 onwards, or the research into changes in ocean heating. Only the most basic analysis, without looking outside one simple metric(and oddly choosing an anomalously warm year to begin the second half of analysis), could come to these conclusions. Why didn't the article link to the study? I have been unable to find a report, unless by report they simply mean the most recently released average temperature is the same as it was in 1997.

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 "Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 - 1996 warming."

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 "Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 - such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles - may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?"

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by "external forcings", such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade - but this is an area of ongoing research.

----

The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer peri ...

It's over. You need to seek grief counselling.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of 'natural variability', but he was convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two, the report added.

Professor Judith Curry, chair of School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, was quoted as saying,"Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect."It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance."

That has to hurt you very much. Your bubble of superior knowledge has been horribly deflated, not that I ever believed that you had even average knowledge.

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme - you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer peri ...

You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.

The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.

Electrify:You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.

The graph makes it look large, but that is in parts per million. Even the very largest change shown is only a tiny fraction of 1%. One of the reasons I am a skeptical of these claims CO2 emissions are causing wide-scale warming is becasuse the actual change in the composition of the atmosphere is so miniscule. That and if you drew a line of best fit through the last 14 years of data it would be flat, despite the fact the world is more industrialized now (and spewing more carbon) than at any other time in history.

Yes, global temperatures rose slightly from 1980 to 1997, but I think there just is not enough information on all varibles involved to say to a certainty what the cause is.

Professor Judith Curry, chair of School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, was quoted as saying,"Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance."

While JonSnoJob stomps his feet and yells "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE" real scientists are admitting that they were wrong.

tomWright:Yup. They deactivate half the cylinders in the engine when they are not needed, like cruising at stead speeds.

That has little to do with it. It's more like, a smaller engine has to work harder and a hard working engine isn't always clean. Meanwhile, a larger engine that loafs all the time can basically run in 99-100% of all normal driving situations without having to go into emissions-creating power enrichment. Plus, since emissions standards are on a grams per mile and not parts per million, larger engines HAVE to run cleaner, to begin with.

Also, I wouldn't doubt if a Corvette presented less frontal area than a Smart. Once you're on the highway, aero is all that matters, especially on flat ground. Then it just boils down to gearing the engine to be in the sweet spot BSFC-wise.

I don't know about the newer models with cylinder deactivation, but the older LT1 and LS1 engined models would easily top 30mpg, even with automatics (which didn't have the 6-speeds' notoriously tall top gear) I'm sure the newer ones could do better.

/meh, my 2.2 VW and my 13B-engined RX-7 both get 23mpg highway/the RX-7 is probably on the EPA's Ten Most Wanted list, tho

Corvus:Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.

Yeah....and trend over 16 straight years? Oh wait!

I love how NOW is somehow an arbitrary point. Like you can choose any now you want. Einstain

SevenizGud:Corvus: Article full of shiat cherry picking. If I can draw a line from any arbitrary points I can make up anything. GW is about a trend not saying every year will always get warmer every time, every where.

Yeah....and trend over 16 straight years? Oh wait!

I love how NOW is somehow an arbitrary point. Like you can choose any now you want. Einstain

How you appear to be defining 'NOW' is fairly arbitrary. 16 years is cherry-picked in order to take advantage of the unusually strong El Nino starting in 1997. You can't even defend such a choice as being aesthetically pleasing to our base 10 counting system.

Of course, you're more than welcome to present a counterargument - 16 years represents "now" because...

SevenizGud:Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

It doesn't match the headline, insofar as it's not a plot of the past 16 years' (192 months) data. See my version above. You have to be even more specific inyour cherry picking than that to really take advantage of the '97-'98 El Niño.

It doesn't match the headline, insofar as it's not a plot of the past 16 years' (192 months) data. See my version above. You have to be even more specific inyour cherry picking than that to really take advantage of the '97-'98 El Niño.

Point taken. On a closer look, the graph isn't of the last 16 years, and not even 15, but a bit less than that. It looks like it wasn't just cherrypicked to take advantage of the El Nino, but to start at a temp anomaly comparable to 0.5°C. It's mislabeled to boot as the time has been shifted as to show a start and end point at the beginning of the year).

HighZoolander:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.

Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

ZAZ:I would never buy a Smart for the gas mileage, which is only a little better than regular-sized competition, but if I had to park in unmarked spaces in the city I would be tempted.

I'd avoid the Smart's personally. They are neat cars yes... but having owned a Mk1 Smart (and had friends with much newer ones):

50k miles and it's time for an engine rebuild.The turbo and manifold are a single unit and it likes to crack with gay abandon resulting in oil everywhere.The 500cc version is utterly gutless and frankly if left in automatic mode dangerous when trying to pull on to a busy round-about (the clutch goes derp for a good 5 - 10s before any power is sent to the wheels).Uncomfortable seats.A bit loud when you consider the engine displacement.Tiny tiny little fuel tank.Leave it standing for a week or two and something (usually the alternator) will have seized solid; this is normal.Worlds worst auto-box, in a 500cc in auto you'll be bouncing between 5th & 6th gear all the damn time on even a small incline when trying to do motoway speeds (i.e. 80mph or so)... and it won't hold the speed either.

Yes sure it kind of goes like a go-kart when you've given it some love and can be a lot of fun but the stock machines... fark that.

chuckufarlie:Electrify: You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.

I was actually referring to the vehicle emissions, not the manufacturing process. I assumed that was pretty obvious, even for a denier.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.

Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

But it is still based on theory.

Where did you learn science? You seem to have these things confused.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not it has been explained by some theory yet. When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact. If I measure the temperature today with a mercury thermometer, the number I get is a fact. It makes no difference whether we live in a holographic universe or Plato's cave or a non-objective reality or anything else - the number I got is a product of the universe the measurement was made in. Now, the nature of the universe or whatever else theory or hypothesis could of course influence our understanding (theory/hypothesis) of why the number came out the way it did when I measured it, but that doesn't make the result of the measurement any less of a fact.

Electrify:chuckufarlie: Electrify: You know, let's pretend that TFA has some truth in it. It was over the last decade that world governments had been pushing auto manufacturers (which make up a sizeable chunk of greenhouse emissions) to improve fuel efficiency and reduce toxic outputs. So to sum everything up:

Then: Climate change is fake! Governments should stop telling businesses to clean up!Now: Okay, climate change was real, but it has stopped now. We don't need government regulations on pollution anymore

/wish Rupert Murdoch would prove once and for all that pollution isn't bad and suck off an exhaust pipe to prove his hypothesis

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in manufacturing has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer.

I was actually referring to the vehicle emissions, not the manufacturing process. I assumed that was pretty obvious, even for a denier.

I was giving you credit for being smarter than you obviously are. The questions remain the same but the actual impact that the vehicles could have had on the climate is going to be even smaller.

Do you really want to tell people that the small amount of change in vehicle emissions has had such an impact? Do you want to tell people that the changes took place immediately once the regulations were put in place? That is pretty stupid, even for a warmer

No matter what your answers, the fact remains that no amount of reduction in emissions would have caused the changes or lack of changes that have been recorded.

For a warmer, you know nothing. Your position is supposed to be that even if all sources of CO2 were shut off today, it would take a very long time (decades) to see any changes. If you do not even know that, you are nothing more than a trolling moron.

Jon Snow:SevenizGud: Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.

[i.imgur.com image 500x375]

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

[i.imgur.com image 500x375]

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.

chuckufarlie:Jon Snow: SevenizGud: Oh, ok. Then show the same graph, and put the right data on it.

[i.imgur.com image 500x375]

The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding. However, the interval is insufficiently long over which to assess the climatological significance of the trend. You need 20-30 years or more to make meaningful statements about climatological trends if you're just looking at a plot of global temp anomaly.

This is what the past 30 years looks like:

[i.imgur.com image 500x375]

The trend is positive, statistically significant, and climatologically meaningful.

Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.

nicksteel:I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.

chuckufarlie:Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?

Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

She was a lot happier looking, though a lot less apt to be quoted by the absurd British conservative tabloids, before her "conversion". I hope the profile increase is worth the toll it looks to be taking on her conscience.

Jon Snow:chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?

Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Gyrony: Professor Judith Curry has a stare that could melt glaciers...

She was a lot happier looking, though a lot less apt to be quoted by the absurd British conservative tabloids, before her "conversion". I hope the profile increase is worth the toll it looks to be taking on her conscience.

HighZoolander:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And, in fact, good science doesn't have facts. It has hypotheses and theories.

er, wat?

Science absolutely does have facts. The hypotheses and theories are attempts to explain the facts.

Well, yes and no.

We look at things like temperature, inches of snowfall, the length of a bird bill, and things like that and call these "facts" and then create hypotheses to explain them and theories and experiments to test those hypotheses.

But people tend to forget the basic axioms of science, the theories on which all science today (which MAY change tomorrow - see below) is based. Such things as "yes, there is an objective reality which we can measure. That is a theory. It is accepted these days as axiomatic and scientific "fact" because it works, and works apparently every time it is used.

But it is one of several competing theories. Consider the earliest one: Plato's Cave. Those "facts" may not, in fact, be facts; they may merely be approximations of the real thing, which may appear different to different people.

In science, THAT theory and all similar subjectivist theories have been discarded because they don't work. To date. However, some of the latest findings in cosmology and quantum theory are troubling. Consider, for example, the possibility (advanced by real and serious scientists each supposedly smarter than you and I combined) of a "Holographic Universe."

In sort: science deals with hypotheses and theories. When a theory works really really really well, we can use shorthand and call the things that theory explains "facts" because the theory says they are real.

But it is still based on theory.

Where did you learn science? You seem to have these things confused.

A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not it has been explained by some theory yet. When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact. If I measure the temperature today with a mercury thermometer, the number I get is a fact. It makes no difference whether we live in a holographic universe or Plato's cave or a non-objective reality or anything else - the number I got is a product of the universe the measurement was made in. Now, the nature of the universe or whatever else theory or hypothesis could of course influence our understanding (theory/hypothesis) of why the number came out the way it did when I measured it, but that doesn't make the result of the measurement any less of a fact.

>>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).

dj_bigbird:I'm sorry, it's not "global warming," anymore it's "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" (TM). Who is to say that the warming cycle wasn't part of the natural way of things and human activity didn't stop it?

You know, scientists aren't stupid - but your argument is.

Climate scientists account for background noise like varying levels of solar activity. Just because you don't know anything about scientific analysis doesn't mean those who are qualified don't.